GnuPG 2.4.4 still using legacy packets?

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 10:44, Loup Vaillant said:

> code. RFC 9580 is fairly readable, but it’s not crystal clear how
> people do signatures in practice, so I used GnuPG as a reference.

Oh and I thought one of the goals was to make it better readable ;-).
Yet another goal not achieved - which is also not a surprise given the
heavily increased size of the the specification.

>     10  : Legacy format

I don't know what you mean by Legacy Format.  It might be that RFC9580
defines that as legacy but there is no reason for this.  The old CTB
works just fine and can't be dropped for backward compatibility reasons.

> As far as I can tell, version 2.4.4 is from last year.  And yet it
> outputs *by default* a legacy format that was obsoleted 26 years

It has never been obsoleted.  BTW, GnuPG does not implement the new
RFC9580 specification but LibrePGP which is just a minor update to the
well matured RFC4880 specification.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
refuse military service.             - A. Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20251111/dfe7f773/attachment.sig>